Avoiding/Managing Osteoarthritis

Arthritis is the umbrella term for a cluster of joint diseases involving inflammation of the joints, hence “arthr-” (joint) “-itis” (suffix used to denote inflammation).

Inflammatory vs Non-Inflammatory Arthritis

Arthritis is broadly divided into inflammatory arthritis and non-inflammatory arthritis.

Some forms, such as rheumatoid arthritis, are of the inflammatory kind. We wrote about that previously:

See: Avoiding/Managing Rheumatoid Arthritis

You may be wondering: how does one get non-inflammatory inflammation of the joints?

The answer is, in “non-inflammatory” arthritis, such as osteoarthritis, the damage comes first (by general wear-and-tear) and inflammation generally follows as part of the symptoms, rather than the cause.

So the name can be a little confusing. In the case of osteo- and other “non-inflammatory” forms of arthritis, you definitely still want to keep your inflammation at bay as best you can; it’s just not the prime focus.

So, what should we focus on?

First and foremost: avoiding wear-and-tear if possible. Naturally, we all must live our lives, and sometimes that means taking a few knocks, and definitely it means using our joints. An unused joint would suffer just as much as an abused one. But, we can take care of our joints!

We wrote on that previously, too:

See: How To Really Look After Your Joints

New osteoarthritis medication (hot off the press!)

At 10almonds, we try to keep on top of new developments, and here’s a shiny new one from this month:

• Methotrexate to treat hand osteoarthritis with synovitis (12th Oct, clinical trial)
• New research has found an existing drug could help many people with painful hand osteoarthritis (24th Oct, pop-science article about the above, but still written by one of the study authors!)

Note also that Dr. Flavia Cicuttini there talks about what we talked about above—that calling it non-inflammatory arthritis is a little misleading, as the inflammation still occurs.

And finally…

You might consider other lifestyle adjustments to manage your symptoms. These include:

• Exercise—gently, though!
• Rest—while keeping mobility going.
• Mobility aids—if it helps, it helps.
• Go easy on the use of braces, splints, etc—these can offer short-term relief, but at a long term cost of loss of mobility.
  • Only you can decide where to draw the line when it comes to that trade-off.

You can also check out our previous article:

See: Managing Chronic Pain (Realistically!)

Take good care of yourself!

Non-sugar sweeteners came under fire from the World Health Organization a couple of years ago:

The Problem With Sweeteners ← this is mostly about how they prompt cravings of increasingly sweeter foods/drinks, but there are other considerations discussed too

And sucralose (which is technically a sugar, but isn’t processed by the body as sugar, so it “doesn’t count” as such; the body treats it as a dietary fiber instead) got some bad press of its own:

The Sucralose News: Scaremongering Or Serious? ← the answer is both, by the way, but there’s nuance here, so do read the article!

And now, there’s more news about how sucralose specifically interferes with the brain’s hunger/satiety signals:

The study

A medium-sized (n=75) study of adults looked at the brain’s responses to, varyingly,

• Water
• Sucralose in water
• Sucrose in water (matched to be the same sweetness as the sucralose)

…using MRI, focusing on hunger-related regions like the hypothalamus.

Additionally, blood samples were taken to measure glucose, insulin, and satiety hormone (GLP-1) levels.

As for what they found:

• Sucralose kept hunger signals active in the brain for up to 35 minutes, unlike sucrose, which reduced hunger activity quickly.
• There was increased hypothalamic blood flow after sucralose intake, which meant heightened hunger signaling.
• Participants felt hungrier after consuming sucralose compared to sugar
• Sugar intake increased blood glucose (obviously), suppressing hunger, whereas sucralose had no such effect (again, reasonable, though it was worth checking, because if sucralose had an effect on insulin response, that would indirectly affect blood sugar levels one way or the other, depending on the effect on insulin levels—but that didn’t happen, so for now we may assume sucralose doesn’t affect insulin or insulin signalling).
• Women exhibited twice the hypothalamic response to sucralose compared to men, reinforcing sex-based differences in appetite control. Specifically, it was most likely hormonal differences that drove this, since the study’s participants were young adults (ages 18–35); it’s possible that if older adults had been included, untreated menopause could have changed these stats. But that latter’s just a hypothesis for now.
• Sucralose enhanced brain connectivity between the hypothalamus and motivation/reward-processing areas, potentially increasing cravings.

You can read the paper itself here:

Non-caloric sweetener effects on brain appetite regulation in individuals across varying body weights

The practical takeaway? Sucralose interferes with the brain’s “full” signals, keeping you hungrier for longer, which will (all else being equal) incline you to eat more than you would otherwise.

So, it might be worth skipping sucralose, unless you specifically want to increase how much you eat.

Want to learn more?

You might want to check out:

Carbonated Water: For Weight Loss, Satiety, Or Just Gas?

Take care!